We present the concept of organizational misfit as a complement to multi-contingency theory fit
concepts for organizational performance. Firms with misfits have opportunity losses that firms
without misfits do not suffer. Using data from 232 small and medium sized Danish firms, we
confirm the hypotheses that firms with either or both situational and contingency misfits have
lower performance increases than firms without misfits. Further, a firm may not obtain increased
performance from the elimination of misfits piecemeal, but will obtain significant nonlinear positive
increases when misfits are fixed within a holistic or systems approach.

Climate is the atmosphere of the organization, a “relatively enduring quality of the internal
environment of an organization, which is experienced by its members and influences their
behavior.” The organizational climate can be measured in terms of trust, morale, conflict, equity
in rewards, leader credibility, resistance to change and scapegoating. Using a factor analysis, we
found that the organizational climate can be described in two dimensions: “tension” and the
resistance to change for a group of 245 Danish companies. High tension involves strained
relationships, stress and a balance of the combined factors. High resistance to change is a
preference for tomorrow to be like today. Change management has a long history and rests
fundamentally upon Lewin’s three phases: unfreeze, change and re-freeze. More recently, change
management is seen as sensemaking and the creation of an organizational reality in which change
is more usual and continuous.
Using the competing values framework, four organizational climates emerge:
S internal process, which is high on tension and resistance to change,
S rational goal, which is high on tension and low on resistance to change,
S developmental, which is low on tension and low on resistance to change,
and
S group, which is low on tension and high on resistance to change.
The managerial implications are complex For a fast paced world, the resistance to change
must be low. Lewinian episodic change is difficult, slow and costly. Continuous change can be
managed, where change becomes the norm of the organization. However, tension does not have
to be low. Individuals may prefer a low tension organization, but it may not be necessary for a fast
paced world. Further, since the two dimensions are independent, managers cannot reduce tension
as a means to reduce the resistance to change.